People v. Velez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Velez

77 A.D.2d 928, 432 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12710

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedAugust 18, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 77 A.D.2d 928 (People v. Velez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Velez, 77 A.D.2d 928, 432 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12710 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered. Novémber 4, 1977, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. The facts have been considered and are determined to have been estáblished. Prior to summation the trial court denied a defense request for a charge on criminal facilitation (Penal Law, § 115.05) as a lesser included offense of criminal sale of a controlled substance. We find, however, that on the facts of this case, criminal facilitation was a lesser included offense of the sale count (see People v Lewis, 68 AD2d 862; People v Sexton, 50 AD2d 842), and the trial court committed reversible error in refusing to so charge. Titone, J. P., Gibbons, Cohalan and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered. Novémber 4, 1977, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. The facts have been considered and are determined to have been estáblished. Prior to summation the trial court denied a defense request for a charge on criminal facilitation (Penal Law, § 115.05) as a lesser included offense of criminal sale of a controlled substance. We find, however, that on the facts of this case, criminal facilitation was a lesser included offense of the sale count (see People v Lewis, 68 AD2d 862; People v Sexton, 50 AD2d 842), and the trial court committed reversible error in refusing to so charge. Titone, J. P., Gibbons, Cohalan and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 A.D.2d 928, 432 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12710, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-velez-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack